THE BENEFITS OF CLIMATE FOR INCLUSION
FOR GENDER-DIVERSE GROUPS
LISA H. NISHII
Cornell University
I introduce the construct of climate for inclusion, which involves eliminating rela-
tional sources of bias by ensuring that identity group status is unrelated to access to
resources, creating expectations and opportunities for heterogeneous individuals to
establish personalized cross-cutting ties, and integrating ideas across boundaries in
joint problem solving. I show that within inclusive climates, interpersonal bias is
reduced in such a way that gender diversity is associated with lower levels of conflict.
In turn, the negative effect that group conflict typically has on unit-level satisfaction
disappears. This has important implications, as unit-level satisfaction is negatively
associated with turnover in groups.
In the last several years, diversity rhetoric has
shifted from a focus on diversity management to
one on inclusion. The focus on inclusion reflects
the recognition that for organizations to reduce
problems associated with demographic diversity—
such as high levels of conflict and turnover—
organizations need to proactively create inclusive
environments that make it possible to leverage di-
versity’s potential benefits (Holvino, Ferdman, &
Merrill-Sands, 2004). In inclusive environments,
individuals of all backgrounds—not just members
of historically powerful identity groups—are fairly
treated, valued for who they are, and included in
core decision making. Like the “multicultural” or-
ganizations described by Cox (1993), inclusive en-
vironments are characterized by a collective com-
mitment to integrating diverse cultural identities as
a source of insight and skill (Ely & Thomas, 2001).
They are distinguished from “plural” organizations
that focus on increasing diverse representation but
continue to expect nontraditional employees to as-
similate to dominant norms (Davidson & Ferd-
man, 2001).
The key to moving from a plural organization to
an inclusive one is to alter the sociorelational
context within which heterogeneous individuals
interact. Inclusion is hampered when employees
perceive others in terms of oversimplified and neg-
ative stereotypes and interpersonal interactions are
perverted by status dynamics (DiTomaso, Post, &
Parks-Yancy, 2007). The implementation of diver-
sity practices that are targeted specifically at im-
proving the employment outcomes of historically
disadvantaged groups such as women and ethnic
minorities may, in and of itself, fail to foster true
inclusion for two reasons. First, as Green and Kalev
(2008) argued, diversity management practices may
help to reduce bias in key personnel decision-mak-
ing moments, but they are unlikely to alter the
day-to-day relational sources of discrimination that
impact people’s experiences of inclusion. Rather,
what is required for enhancing inclusion is more
consistent with prescriptions made by Allport
(1954) long ago: that people (a) are of approxi-
mately equal status; (b) have opportunities to get to
know each other in more personal ways, establish
cross-cutting ties, and rely less on stereotypes; and
(c) work together across roles, levels, and demo-
graphic boundaries to solve shared problems
through participative decision making (cf. Brewer
& Miller, 1984, 1988; Ensari & Miller, 2006; Fiol,
Pratt, & O’Connor, 2009). Second, to the extent that
diversity management practices that focus specifi-
cally on improving the outcomes of historically
disadvantaged groups cause resentment or back-
lash on the part of individuals who do not directly
benefit from these practices, they can have the u n-
I would like to thank this journal’s editor, Jason
Colquitt, for his invaluable guidance through the review
process, as well as the reviewers for their thoughtful
feedback. I would also like to thank Benjamin Schneider
for instilling in me a deep appreciation for the power of
organizational climate. This research was funded by a
grant supported by the Office of Disability Employment
Policy of the U.S. Department of Labor (E-9-4-6-0107).
The opinions contained in this publication are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
Department of Labor.
1754
娀 Academy of Management Journal
2013, Vol. 56, No. 6, 1754–1774.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
intended effect of exacerbating negative stereo-
types and perceived intergroup competition (Fiol
et al., 2009).
The current wisdom is that to really manage both
the problems and the potential benefits associated
with diversity, organizations need to create envi-
ronments that are inclusive of all employees
(Ferdman & Davidson, 2004; Shore, Randel, Chung,
Dean, Ehrhart, & Singh, 2011). Despite the growing
awareness of the potential benefits associated with
cultivating inclusive environments, empirical tes-
tament of the power of inclusion is scarce. Thus,
the goal of this research is to introduce the con-
struct of climate for inclusion, and to examine its
benefits for group processes and outcomes in gen-
der-diverse groups. Although diversity research
has focused on the effects of demographic diversity
on a wide variety of group process variables (e.g.,
communication, cohesion, cooperation, social inte-
gration), I chose to focus on group conflict, since
almost every review of the group diversity litera-
ture has suggested that a primary explanation for
the frequent association of demographic diversity
with negative group outcomes is that heteroge-
neous groups tend to experience higher levels of
conflict (e.g., DiTomaso et al., 2007; Jackson, Joshi,
& Erhardt, 2003; Herring, 2009; King, Hebl, & Beal,
2009; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Milliken & Martins,
1996; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004;
van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams &
O’Reilly, 1998). In describing the relationship be-
tween demographic diversity and group conflict,
management researchers have borrowed almost ex-
clusively from psychological theories of social
identity and social categorization, in which it is
assumed that categorizations of others based on
demographic attributes result almost automatically
in biases that favor in-group members over out-
group members (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999).
A different view emerges from sociological ap-
proaches to workforce diversity. In particular, pro-
ponents of status characteristics theory (Ridgeway,
1991; Ridgeway & Correll, 2006) argue that social
identity differences among group members are psy-
chologically meaningful only when they are corre-
lated with status rankings and access to resources
in ways that reinforce historical and societal trends
(DiTomaso et al., 2007; Ridgeway, 1991). When
structural and status relationships within an or-
ganization legitimize sociohistorical status be-
liefs, they perpetuate stereotyping and bias related
to cultural identity. Thus, the psychological mean-
ingfulness of a cultural identity refers to more than
perceptual salience or cognitive accessibility (Oakes,
Haslam, & Turner, 1994; Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans,
2008). To the extent that organizational factors such
as climate for inclusion invalidate arbitrary status
hierarchies in a local context, a particular identity
characteristic can lose its psychological meaning so
that it no longer triggers the negative social categori-
zation processes that result in conflict.
Building upon this notion, I examine how cli-
mate for inclusion affects the relationships between
gender diversity and group conflict and between
conflict and group members’ aggregate satisfaction,
with the expectation that group-level satisfaction in
turn predicts unit turnover. Although theoretically
I expect climate for inclusion to influence dynam-
ics associated with all forms of demographic diver-
sity, I focus specifically on gender diversity in this
study for a number of reasons. First, for an initial
test of climate for inclusion’s beneficial effects, my
preference was to focus on a dimension of diversity
that represents a universally relevant problem (Ka-
beer, 2003; Mor-Barak, 2005; Sen, 2001; Shen,
Chanda, D’Netto, & Monga, 2009). In addition, the
“fixedness” of gender-based status differentials is
dramatic (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), and therefore
there is a significant need to continue to explore the
conditions under which the negative interpersonal
dynamics associated with gender-based status dif-
ferentials can be mitigated. Moreover, gender is a
particularly important type of diversity for conflict,
since its visibility makes it a highly likely trigger of
conflict (Pelled, 1996). My decision to focus pri-
marily on gender diversity in this study was further
reinforced by the nature of the organization that
populated my sample, in which gender disparities
tend to be more serious than disparities based on
any other identity characteristics; as a result, gen-
der differences tend to be particularly salient and
psychologically meaningful in this context.
This study is intended to extend research in four
key ways. First, it provides a much needed empir-
ical operationalization of inclusive climates. Sec-
ond, it responds to calls for research on the mod-
erators of the link between diversity and group
processes such as conflict (King et al., 2009; van
Knippenberg et al., 2004; van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007) and does so utilizing field data.
Third, in doing so, it extends existing research on
group conflict by being among the first studies to
(a) examine the moderating role of social context as
created by an organization (i.e., unit climate) rather
than task or group structure characteristics (e.g.,
Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Pearsall et al.,
2013 1755Nishii
2008; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999; Webber &
Donahue, 2001) or personal preferences (e.g., Ay-
oko & Härtel, 2003; Mohammed & Angell, 2004)
and (b) improve understanding of the factors that
can mitigate the negative effects of relationship
conflict. Finally, this study contributes to research
on the business case for diversity by linking group
diversity and conflict with turnover. Lower turn-
over associated with diversity continues to be one
of the greatest challenges faced by organizations
(McKay, Avery, Tonidandel, Morris, Hernandez, &
Hebl, 2007).
HYPOTHESES
Climate for Inclusion
In their seminal work, Ely and Thomas (2001)
used qualitative methods to arrive at a rich descrip-
tion of the different approaches to managing diver-
sity adopted by organizations. They described the
most inclusive organizations as adopting a “learn-
ing and integration” perspective that is character-
ized by the belief that people’s diverse backgrounds
are a source of insight that should be utilized to
adapt and improve the organizations’ strategic
tasks. To successfully resource diversity for learn-
ing, employees are expected to expend consider-
able effort exploring their differences and exhibit a
deep commitment to educating each other so that
they can infuse their thinking with greater cultural
competence. Although scholars have since added
to conceptual understanding of inclusion (e.g.,
Holvino et al., 2004; Shore et al., 2011), there are no
published quantitative studies of inclusive cli-
mates. Thus, I begin with a brief description of the
three dimensions that constitute climate for
inclusion.
As in past work emphasizing the importance of
unbiased organizational practices and targeted di-
versity practices for establishing a positive climate
for diversity (e.g., Hicks-Clarke & Iles, 2000; McKay
et al., 2007; Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998),
the first dimension involves a foundation of fairly
implemented employment practices and diversity-
specific practices that help to eliminate bias.
1
Percep-
tions of justice signify a “level playing field”
(Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002); biased employment
practices, however, perpetuate demographically
based status differentials in organizations (Green-
haus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990). When em-
ployees perceive the distribution of resources to cor-
relate with identity group membership, members of
the group(s) perceived as favored tend to be consid-
ered a normative in-group and to command more
respect, deference, and power (Ridgeway, Boyle,
Kuipers, & Robinson, 1998). This makes individuals’
membership in the normative in-group versus
out-group salient and informative for interper-
sonal dynamics.
Although this dimension is similar to some prior
conceptualizations of diversity climate that also
focus on the fairness of organizational practices
(e.g., Gilbert & Ones, 1999; Hegarty & Dalton, 1995;
Hicks-Clarke & Iles, 2000; Kossek & Zonia, 1993;
Mor Barak et al., 1998), the construct of climate for
inclusion is broader in scope, as the next two di-
mensions illustrate. As mentioned previously,
creating inclusive climates requires more than in-
creasing diverse representation and implementing
equitable human resources (HR) practices; it re-
quires a change in interaction patterns. In recogni-
tion of this, the second dimension, integration of
differences, captures the interpersonal integration
of diverse employees at work. It reflects collective
expectations and norms regarding the openness
with which employees can enact and engage core
aspects of their self-concept and/or multiple iden-
tities (Kahn, 1990; Ramarajan, 2009) without suf-
fering unwanted consequences (Ragins, 2008).
2
This dimension reflects elements of Berry’s (1984)
model of acculturation in that it contrasts integra-
tionist environments in which all individuals re-
tain substantial pieces of their own cultural identi-
ties with assimilationist environments in which
nondominant groups conform to the values and
norms of a dominant group. In integrationist envi-
ronments, group members are able to develop more
1
Compared to prior conceptualizations of justice cli
-
mate (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2002), this dimension of cli-
mate for inclusion is broader in its focus, as it taps not
just the fairness with which HR practices in general are
implemented, but also how well diversity-specific prac-
tices such as grievance procedures are implemented. Fur-
thermore, the climate for inclusion construct is com-
prised of two additional dimensions that focus on social
and decision-making integration, both of which are
clearly distinct from justice climate.
2
Like the construct of climate for psychological safety
(Edmondson, 1999), this dimension has to do in part
with felt psychological safety, though the focus here is
more on the safety that employees feel about engaging
their personal identity, beyond the safety that they may
feel about taking risks related to their group’s task.
1756 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal
complex perceptions of others, thereby perceiving
greater variability among members of other identity
groups (Brewer & Miller, 1984, 1988; Ensari &
Miller, 2006). Personalized contact of this sort has
been shown to disconfirm negative stereotypes of
out-group members and diminish the in-group/out-
group distinctions that fuel conflict (Ensari &
Miller, 2001, 2002, 2005). In contrast, work on fa-
cades of conformity (Hewlin, 2003, 2009) and sur-
face acting (Hochschild, 1983) suggests that when
people constrain their emotions and behaviors in
order to construct public representations of them-
selves that are aligned with desired organizational
personas, they suffer from strain and psychologi-
cally disengage from their work (Clair, Beatty, &
MacLean, 2005).
Finally, the third dimension, inclusion in deci-
sion making, captures the extent to which the di-
verse perspectives of employees are actively sought
and integrated, even if expressed ideas might upset
the status quo (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Mor Barak &
Cherin, 1998). In inclusive climates, the question-
ing of dominant assumptions is not seen as a threat,
but rather as a value-enhancing proposition, and
thus barriers that could perpetuate organizational
silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) are actively
eliminated. In such contexts, group members will
have more opportunities to engage in interactions
that enable them to contribute to “double-looped
learning” (Argyris & Schön, 1978) and develop a
more differentiated and personalized understand-
ing of the unique characteristics of out-group mem-
bers (Ensari & Miller, 2006). Indeed, such demo-
cratic decision-making processes have been hailed
by some as critical for the reduction of stereotypes
and bias (e.g., Green & Kalev, 2008).
Climate for Inclusion as a Moderator of the Link
between Gender Diversity and Conflict
The primary explanation for diversity’s associa-
tion with group conflict is that visible differences
like gender lead to categorization processes that
trigger intergroup biases, as reflected in inflated
levels of conflict (Pelled, 1996; Tajfel & Turner,
1986). When others’ perspectives are perceived
through a social categorization lens, they tend to be
viewed negatively and therefore lead to derogation
and conflict (Larkey, 1996). Although meta-
analytic results involving the relationship between
gender diversity and group conflict are not avail-
able, inflated levels of conflict likely account for
the negative relationship found in a meta-analysis
of the relationship between gender diversity and
team performance (Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, &
Briggs, 2011). To attenuate this effect, a contextual
moderator would have to reduce the propensity for
gender-based categorization processes to lead to
intergroup bias. There are two theoretical reasons
to expect that a unit’s climate for inclusion would
have this desired effect.
First, according to research on expectation states
(Berger, Fiske, Norman, & Zelditch, 1997) and
structural ritualization theories (Knottnerus, 1997),
in an organizational context in which organization-
al resources are evenly distributed across men and
women, gender-based (arbitrary) social hierarchies
become invalidated (Jasso, 2001; Ridgeway & Cor-
rell, 2006). When gender (or any other cultural
identity) is no longer predictive of favored status,
intergroup animosity and biases based on gender
will be much less likely to be exhibited (cf. Brewer,
1999; Hogg & Terry, 2000). In less inclusive cli-
mates, however, men are likely to hold a dispropor-
tionately large amount of “social value” as mem-
bers of the favored social category, thereby
contributing to the perception that material and
symbolic resources (e.g., “voice,” in the sense of
opportunity to speak, and inclusion) are scarce,
which in turn breeds competition and negative affect
(Brewer, 1999). In addition, because lower-status
women are expected to assimilate into the dominant
culture as defined by favored male employees (Eagly,
Wood, & Diekman, 2000), the threat to them of having
their behavior evaluated in terms of deviance from
dominant norms exacerbates intergroup biases and
conflict.
In indirect support of these arguments, Wagner,
Ford, and Ford (1986) showed that the effect of
gender-based status inequalities on interpersonal
interactions can be reduced by disconfirming
gender-based status expectations. Wagner et al.’s
(1986) work, along with that of Epstein (1979), sug-
gests that in contexts in which the correlation be-
tween gender and favored status is eliminated, sta-
tus-neutral men will be less likely to dominate
interactions and expect assimilative behaviors on
the part of women, and instead will be more likely
to share voice and treat women with respect. As a
result, affective conflict should be lower in gender-
diverse groups with inclusive climates. In a similar
line of work, Jasso (2001) showed how gender-
based status hierarchies are completely dependent
on the distribution of “first-order” status character-
istics between men and women. To the extent that
men and women have similar amounts of charac-
2013 1757Nishii
teristics that are valued in a particular context (e.g.,
access to resources, opportunities, and voice), sta-
tus hierarchies can be eliminated in that context.
However, when the social system in a context as-
signs higher status to one sex, it creates incentives
for members of the social system to defend status in
terms of sex, often in the form of mistreatment and
harassment based on sex (cf. Berdahl, 2007), as
evidenced in higher levels of group conflict.
The second reason to expect that climate for in-
clusion will attenuate any positive relationship be-
tween gender diversity and group conflict is related
to the value that is placed on self-expression as a
means of engaging in “deep learning” (Ely &
Thomas, 2001), which helps employees in inclu-
sive climates to feel psychologically safe to be au-
thentic. By sharing their personal identities and
perspectives, they are more likely to foster interper-
sonal trust (Ensari & Miller, 2006) and experience
self-verification, or be seen by coworkers as they
seem to themselves (Polzer, Milton, & Swann,
2002). As a result, feelings of connectedness among
group members should increase, thereby facilitat-
ing better communication and interpersonal har-
mony rather than conflict (Jackson et al., 2003). As
relational ties that cut across genders are culti-
vated, people begin to categorize each other in
more complex and personalized ways (Lau & Mur-
nighan, 1998; Mannix & Neale, 2005), thereby mak-
ing it more likely that they become able to accept
one another’s differences (Larkey, 1996) and per-
sonally committed to maintaining meaningful in-
terdependencies that are not so governed by iden-
tity differences (Brickson & Brewer, 2001).
Indeed, recent research by Ramarajan (2009)
showed that individuals who are able to engage
multiple identities at work are more open to differ-
ent perspectives and able to integrate multiple view-
points successfully, indicating that they should be
better able to exchange perspectives productively.
Furthermore when people reveal, rather than sup-
press, aspects of their identity that are important to
them, coworkers will be better able to see them as
they are (Polzer et al., 2002); this enables group mem-
bers to engage in healthy task-related debate without
misinterpreting one another or labeling task-related
exchanges as conflict per se. As a result, gender di-
versity should be associated with lower levels of re-
lationship and task conflict than would be the case in
work contexts that perpetuate categorization-based
perceptual processes and behaviors. Accordingly:
Hypothesis 1. A unit’s climate for inclusion
moderates the relationship between gender di-
versity and relationship conflict: lower levels of
relationship conflict are experienced in gender-
diverse groups that enjoy highly inclusive cli-
mates than in diverse groups with climates that
are not as inclusive.
Hypothesis 2. A unit’s climate for inclusion
moderates the relationship between gender di-
versity and task conflict: lower levels of task
conflict are experienced in gender-diverse
groups that enjoy highly inclusive climates
than in gender-diverse groups with climates
that are not as inclusive.
Climate for Inclusion as a Moderator of the Link
between Conflict and Satisfaction
In all types of diverse groups, relationship con-
flict has been shown to be negatively associated
with unit-level satisfaction (i.e., group member sat-
isfaction aggregated to the unit level), and posi-
tively associated with unit-level turnover (De Dreu
& Weingart, 2003). Surprisingly, scholars have
found that norms for openness about conflict and
collaboration fail to attenuate the negative out-
comes of relationship conflict. Norms for openness
had the unintended effect of leading people to ex-
perience more intense and vicious relationship
conflicts that are less likely to be resolved in satis-
factory ways (Jehn, 1995). Similar results were
found in response to norms for collaboration (De
Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001); the only strategy that
worked for preserving team functioning and effec-
tiveness was for people to ignore conflict alto-
gether. While it is understandably tempting to ig-
nore conflict, it is far from ideal to do so, for it
means that conflicts go unresolved and are allowed
to fester, making it impossible for group members
to improve rapport and understanding (Fiol et al.,
2009). Promoting norms for collaboration and/or
openness may be ineffective because they focus
only on conflict itself, and not also on the more
general interpersonal context within which the
conflicting parties are embedded.
Work by Brewer (1999) suggests that highlighting
the need for cooperation can backfire when the
parties involved differ in social status, since pres-
sure to cooperate makes the absence of mutual trust
salient. Without mutual trust that comes from the
elimination of arbitrary status differences and the
development of cross-cutting ties, individuals in
1758 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal
